philosophy of nature-第9部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


of　reflection；　the　compound；　was　seized　upon；　so　that　brightness　here　could　consist　of　seven
darknesses；　or　water　could　consist　of　seven　forms　of　earth。　Further；　the　ineptitude；　tastelessness；
even　dishonesty　of　Newton's　observations　and　experimentations　must　be　addressed；　as　well　as　the
equally　bad　tendency　to　draw　inferences；　conclusions；　and　proofs　from　impure　empirical　data。
Moreover；　the　blindness　of　the　admiration　given　to　Newton's　work　for　nearly　one　and　a　half
centuries　must　be　noted；　the　narrowmindedness　of　those　admirers　who　defend　his　conceptions；
and；　in　particular；　the　thoughtlessness　with　which　a　number　of　the　immediate　conclusions　of　that
theory　（for　example；　the　impossibility　of　an　achromatic　telescope）　were　dropped；　although　the
theory　itself　is　still　maintained。　Finally；　there　is　the　blindness　of　the　prejudice　that　the　theory　rests
on　something　mathematical；　as　if　the　partly　false　and　one…sided　measurements；　as　well　as　the
quantitative　determinations　brought　into　the　conclusions；　would　provide　any　basis　for　the　theory
and　the　nature　of　the　thing　itself。…A　major　reason　why　the　clear；　thorough；　and　learned　illumination
by　Goethe　of　this　darkness　concerning　light　has　not　had　a　more　effective　reception　is　doubtlessly
because　the　thoughtlessness　and　simplemindedness；　which　one　would　have　to　confess　for
following　Newton　for　so　long；　would　be　entirely　too　great。　

Instead　of　these　nonsensical　conceptions　disappearing；　they　have　recently　been　compounded　by
the　discoveries　of　Malus；　by　the　idea　of　a　polarisation　of　light；　the　notion　of　the　four…sidedness　of
sunbeams；　and　the　idea　that　red　beams　rotate　in　a　movement　to　the　left；　whereas　blue　beams
rotate　in　a　movement　to　the　right。　Such　simplistic　ideas　seem　justified　by　the　privilege　accorded　to
physics　to　generate　〃hypotheses。〃　But　even　as　a　joke　one　does　not　indulge　in　stupidities；　thus　so
much　the　less　should　stupidities　be　offered　as　hypotheses　which　are　not　even　meant　to　be　jokes。　

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§　222。

Light　shapes　the　determinate　being　or　the　physical　meaning　of　the　body　of　abstract　centrality　in　the
determination　of　its　identity。　Light　is　the　active　identity　which　posits　everything　as　identical。　As　this
identity；　however；　is　still　wholly　abstract；　things　are　not　yet　really　identical；　but　are　for　an　other；
positing　their　identity　with　the　other　in　the　other。　

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§　223。

This　abstract　identity　has　its　real　antithesis　outside　of　itself。　As　an　elementary　moment　of　reflection
it　falls　apart　into　itself　and　is　as　a　duality：　（a）　of　corporeal　diversity；　of　material　being　for　itself　of
rigidity；　（b）　of　opposition　as　such；　which；　existing　independently　and　uncontrolled　by　individuality；
has　merely　sunken　within　itself　and　is　thus　dissolution　and　neutrality。　The　former　is　the　lunar；　the
latter　is　the　cometary　body。　

As　relative　central　bodies　in　the　system　of　gravity　these　two　bodies　have　their　more　specific
significance；　which　is　based　on　the　same　concept　as　their　physical　significance　and　may　be　stated
here：　they　do　not　rotate　on　their　axes。　The　body　of　rigidity　has　only　a　formal　being　for　itself　which
is　independence　comprehended　in　antithesis　and　therefore　not　individuality。　Hence　it　is　subservient
to　another　body　whose　satellite　it　is；　and　in　which　it　has　its　axis。　The　body　of　dissolution；　on　the
other　hand；　the　opposite　of　the　body　of　rigidity；　behaves　aberrantly；　and　exhibits　contingency　in　its
eccentric　path　as　in　its　physical　existence。　One　can　therefore　suspect　of　these　bodies　that　the
proximity　of　a　large　planet　could　change　their　course。　They　show　themselves　to　be　a　superficial
concretion；　which　may　just　contingently　turn　itself　again　into　dust。　

The　moon　has　no　atmosphere　and　therefore　lacks　the　meteorological　process。　It　shows　only　high
mountains　and　craters；　and　the　combustion　of　this　rigidity　in　itself　It　has　the　shape　of　a　crystal；
which　Heim　（one　of　the　few　ingenious　geologists）　has　described　as　the　original　form　of　the　earth　as
a　merely　solid　body。　

The　comet　appears　as　a　formal　process　and　unstable　mass　of　vapour；　none　of　them　has　exhibited
anything　of　a　solid　nature；　such　as　a　nucleus。　In　contrast　to　the　image　of　the　ancients；　that　comets
are　merely　meteors；　more　recent　astronomers　have　not　been　as　inflexible　and　presumptuous。　Until
now　only　the　return　of　some　of　them　has　been　demonstrated；　others　were　calculated　to　return；　but
did　not　arrive。　Suggestions　brought　forward　by　astronomers　also　indicate　that　the　previously　held
formal　view　of　comets；　as　crisscross　manifestations　appearing　in　conflict　with　the　coherence　of　the
system；　should　in　time　be　discarded。　Then　the　idea　could　be　accepted　that　the　other　bodies　of　the
system　protect　themselves　against　comets；　that　is；　that　the　other　bodies　of　the　system　function　as
necessary　organic　moments　of　protection。　This　view　would　afford　better　grounds　for　comfort　in
regards　to　the　dangers　of　comets　than　the　reasons　which　have　been　adduced　so　far。　

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§　224。

（3）　The　antithesis　that　has　gone　back　into　itself　is　the　earth　or　the　planet　as　such。　It　is　the　body　of
the　individual　totality；　in　which　rigidity　opens　up　into　a　separation　of　real　differences；　and　this
dissolution　is　held　together　by　self…like　points　of　unity。　

One　is　accustomed　to　seeing　the　sun　and　the　stars　as　more　excellent　natures　than　the　planets；
because　the　first　elevation　of　the　reflection　above　sensory　perception　sets　the　abstract　as　the
highest　point　against　that　individual　element　which　is　not　yet　conceptualised。　The　name　of　a　〃mad
star〃　has　arisen　for　individual　bodies　from　the　immediate　view　of　their　motion。　In　and　for　itself
however；　this　motion　of　the　individual　bodies　as　a　turning　on　an　axis　around　itself　and　also　around
a　central　body　is　the　most　concrete　expression　of　vitality；　and　therefore　more　splendid　than　both
the　stillness　in　the　centre　of　the　system；　and　the　subservient　and　extravagant　motion　of　the　lunar
and　cometary　bodies。　The　natural　light　of　the　central　body　is　equally　its　abstract　identity；　with　its
truth；　like　that　of　thought；　in　the　concrete　idea；　in　individuality。　

In　regards　to　the　series　of　planets；　astronomy　has　still　not　discovered　any　actual　law　governing　the
determination　of　their　proximity；　their　distancing；　or　even　anything　rational…I　no　longer　find
satisfying　what　I　tried　to　show　in　an　earlier　dissertation　about　this　issue。…Moreover；　the　attempts　by
the　philosophy　of　nature　to　demonstrate　the　rationality　of　the　series　in　its　physical　constitution；
which　have　until　now　been　merely　preliminary　attempts　to　establish　basic　perspectives；　can　also　be
viewed　as　unsatisfactory。　What　is　irrational　is　to　establish　the　thought　of　contingency　as　the　basis；
and　to　see　the　idea　of　the　organisation　of　the　solar　system　according　to　the　laws　of　musical
harmony；　as　for　example　in　Kepler's　thought；　as　an　imaginative　confusion；　and　not　to　respect　the
profound　belief　that　

there　is　reason　in　this　system。　For　this　belief　was　the　sole　basis　of　Kepler's　discoveries。　Instead；　it
was　the　wholly　awkward　and　confused　use　of　the　numerical　relations　of　tones；　ap